mcmillans calculator shows ‘equivalent performances’ and not the times any single runner is capable of. Every runner will have a relative strength due to genetics mostly and will not be able to hit equivalent performances across the spectrum.
No pro triathlete could get close to 2:10 without a few years of run focus, if at all. The difference between 2:20ish and 2:10 is night and day. 2:20 will get you a tshirt at most races. 2:10 could get you on the podium with an east African. Night and day.
mcmillans calculator shows ‘equivalent performances’ and not the times any single runner is capable of. Every runner will have a relative strength due to genetics mostly and will not be able to hit equivalent performances across the spectrum.
No pro triathlete could get close to 2:10 without a few years of run focus, if at all. The difference between 2:20ish and 2:10 is night and day. 2:20 will get you a tshirt at most races. 2:10 could get you on the podium with an east African. Night and day.
wrong. 2:20 will get you the win at most races besides the majors (new york, boston, london, etc).
Ask Mark Allen how hard it was…
I am calling 2.25 at best for any of the top guys if they had a few months to focus. If they quit cycling and swimming for 2 years and just ran then maybe a sub 2.20.
You need to remember Triathlons are generally for Triathletes = Triathletes are not world class at any of the individual sports and none of the world class runners, cyclists or swimmers are world class at Triathlon. It is a different sport.
2:20-2:30 for top ironman athletes. The best ironman runners will be closer to 2:20, the uber-bikers closer to 2:30. Let’s assume (which is risky), that the top 10 ironmen are world class endurance athletes (comparable to tour cyclists and real marathon runners) and let’s take those out, that loose 15-30 minutes on them, because they just manage to show, that the field ist not that deep yet (we have quite a few pros with one glaring weakness, like ex riders that can’t swim, runners, that can’t ride …), than we see, that the body type of top triathletes falls into two categories:
The swimming is far more important for the second group, if you loose the pack for one minute, game over. The bikers might loose several minutes in the swim and still win (Stadler). Now outside of this top group, it would be easier to train a 2:10 marathoner into a top 5 ironman outside Kona. And there might be some ironman, that are former run specialists, whou could do something like a 2:10-2:15. But no one, who can swim with the main pack and ride with the bunch.
Ironman running is not limited by leg speed and VO2max (everyone can run with the best for a few kilometers), but by strength and fatigue management, marathon running a “pure” threshold event, limited by the cardiovascular system. Most people finish within 15-20 minutes of the standard marathon time, the more trained, the closer to 15 minutes. Except a certain breed of amateurs, who do 5 minutes slower than stand alone marathon, after drafting @150 Watts 
2:12 - 2:15 for top ITU athletes. ITU athletes are IMHO much more suited for stand alone running. Same intensity level, faster leg speed, similar event length, similar body type. But running a marathon would require a 1/2 year buildup for those guys to do safely. Theyr regular long run is just way too short. And maybe 1-2 years to loose upper body mass. 2 kgs of muscles in the upper body from swimming is a huge disadvantage for fast runners.
Have seen a bunch of top marathoners at the Vienna City Marathon, you can’t imagine how slight they are compared to top triathletes. Al Sultan is a bear of course, but even the slighter triathletes look like monsters compare to those top runners.
What ‘races’ are you referring to? Even a very mid tier race like the RnR series is typically a 2:12-2:15 winning time. Maybe you’re talking about the Des Moines marathon or something prestigious like that. Get a grip.
you clearly are clueless about running if you think 2:20 wins most marathons. 2:20 doesn’t even get you an invite to the OTs. and, yes, the difference between 2:20 and 2:10 is exponential. i’m not sure why i am wasting my time replying here.
you clearly are clueless about running if you think 2:20 wins most marathons. 2:20 doesn’t even get you an invite to the OTs. and, yes, the difference between 2:20 and 2:10 is exponential. i’m not sure why i am wasting my time replying here.
Ran 2 marathons this summer. 2:20 would have won them both. The first marathon had a field of 2500. Second one had a field of 600.
I know, but if a guy can run a 2:40 marathon in an Iron distance race, I would think he might be able to come in around 2:10 or so in an open marathon. In most marathons, that is easily good enough for the win and a high prize purse.
you would probably be wrong
Agree with Saltman. The pro triathletes who are throwing down 2:40s MIGHT be able throw down a 2:20, but likely closer to 2:30. As said, they’d be pro runners if they were sub 2:20. The pro triathletes also likely have much more resistance to fatigue running off the bike and probably run remakably close to their open marathon times, as compared to an amateur, who will lose a lot more time due to postbike burned out legs.
I understand they have more resistance, but you really can’t discount the amount of mental / physical energy they have burned in the previous 5 hours before the marathon portion.
2:10 is 23% faster than 2:40. That is a huge difference. Many pro IM triathletes can’t run 2:10 pace for an open 10k (~30:40), let alone a marathon.
Thats so right, not to state the very very obvious but its over a min a mile quicker, anyone who runs knows what a massive difference that is in real terms. Its a different league.
you clearly are clueless about running if you think 2:20 wins most marathons. 2:20 doesn’t even get you an invite to the OTs. and, yes, the difference between 2:20 and 2:10 is exponential. i’m not sure why i am wasting my time replying here.
Ran 2 marathons this summer. 2:20 would have won them both. The first marathon had a field of 2500. Second one had a field of 600.I finished 10th in a 5k with 3,000 people last year. I failed to break 18 minutes. Field size is often irrelevant… was there major prize money at either of these races? 2:20 is incredibly fast, but field size is definitely irrelevant.
you clearly are clueless about running if you think 2:20 wins most marathons. 2:20 doesn’t even get you an invite to the OTs. and, yes, the difference between 2:20 and 2:10 is exponential. i’m not sure why i am wasting my time replying here.
Ran 2 marathons this summer. 2:20 would have won them both. The first marathon had a field of 2500. Second one had a field of 600.
You know, you’re not making your case any stronger.
you clearly are clueless about running if you think 2:20 wins most marathons. 2:20 doesn’t even get you an invite to the OTs. and, yes, the difference between 2:20 and 2:10 is exponential. i’m not sure why i am wasting my time replying here.
Ran 2 marathons this summer. 2:20 would have won them both. The first marathon had a field of 2500. Second one had a field of 600.
You know, you’re not making your case any stronger.
Empirical evidence toooby. Empirical evidence. There are many marathons across the world per year. I guarantee that 2:20 wins at least 75% of all marathons that take place. Again, I understand that it does not win at the “major” events that attract the worlds best, but to discount 2:20 like it is nothing, the way mag900 has is completely ridiculous. MagHole in all likelyhood is fat and can’t even break 3:30.
i’ve broken 3:30 in an IM marathon so your guess is wrong. your stupidity here leads me to believe that you are the one who can’t break 3:30 in an open marathon (in addition to the fact that you claim to have “run” 2 marathons in the past 2 months, which is moronic however you want to slice it). nobody with any type of running talent would fail to recognize how hard it is to run 2:10.
Where’s your empirical evidence for a comment like this: “I know, but if a guy can run a 2:40 marathon in an Iron distance race, I would think he might be able to come in around 2:10 or so in an open marathon. In most marathons, that is easily good enough for the win and a high prize purse”
You asked a question and obviously had an answer in mind. You’ve made ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with your premise.
I bet a 2:20 would win a bunch of marathons. Park City, UT comes to mind. And that proves exactly nothing. My hometown marathon, Dallas, has a big field, but it’s weak. They’ve decided to focus on quantity of runners over quality of runners. That’s a good economic model. But a 2:20 still won’t win it, even in a slow year.
If many pro and elite amateur IM athletes never race an open marathon, somebody like Brownlee sure as hell isn’t going to.
It’s fun speculation, one might even say mental masturbation. But don’t get your shorts in a wad when somebody disagrees with you, and don’t hold others to a standard that’s not even in the same universe as your posts.
I think I remember Ryan Bolton barely breaking 2:30 back in the day. He was a total stud runner (for a triathlete).
2:10 is laughable for any triathlete.
mcmillans calculator shows ‘equivalent performances’ and not the times any single runner is capable of. Every runner will have a relative strength due to genetics mostly and will not be able to hit equivalent performances across the spectrum.
No pro triathlete could get close to 2:10 without a few years of run focus, if at all. The difference between 2:20ish and 2:10 is night and day. 2:20 will get you a tshirt at most races. 2:10 could get you on the podium with an east African. Night and day.
Actually there is very little physiological difference between a 10k and marathon.
In the '90’s I recall Mark Allen retiring from triathlon to focus on trying to make the olympic team in the marathon. He wasn’t able to even qualify for the trials. In an interview he said that while warming up for a race, he was struck by the differences (stride, smoothness, efficiency, etc) between professional marathoners and IM’ers
I agree that a triathlete who can post a 2:40 marathon in an Ironman (which is mind boggling to me) will not be able to run a 2:10 open marathon. Not even close. Maybe in the 2:20-2:25 range. With that said, it amazes me that many of the pro triathletes have never run an open marathon. I remember watching Miranda break the IM women’s marathon record at Kona in 2010 and she had never run a marathon before. I have read various pro triathletes say that they hope to run the Boston marathon someday. I have run Boston a few times and would gladly trade my spot at Boston in 2012 for a chance to do the Hawaii Ironman…
What was the prize money at your 2500 and 600 strong marathon? Guys who can go sub 2:30 typically won’t go to races that don’t offer some prize money - - especially not a race as small as the ones you are citing where they are almost guaranteed to be running alone most of the race. I also don’t think a top male iron finisher’s open marathon is going to be much more than 10-15 minutes faster than his best effort at an open marathon. They’re just different beasts. - - And I think I’m being generous on that 10-15 minutes. Probably closer to 5 minutes for a lot of them.
Tim Don has run a 10K (Great Manchester Run, therefore should be accurate) in 28:56 (equates to a 2:15 marathon using the McMillan calculator) and a half-marathon in 1:08:52 (2:25 marathon). He’s probably faster/more talented than any IM athlete in running. So he maybe able to get down in to the 2:15 range or slightly lower if he dedicated himself to just running. I also think though that a lot of these ITU guys are not going to improve that much more anyway since they rely so much on the run and would probably train almost the same as they would now (just without the rest of the stuff). Therefore I agree with most of the others…2:20 is more likely for the fastest of the IM guys and you won’t be able to make a living off running 2:20. In fact, I would be surprised if you had any kind of decent living of anything slower than 2:10.